Originally posted on Tuesday, October 18, by Jack Foster at www.afewlinesmagazine.com
Hey guys,
I've been thinking a lot about the publishing world and what it means to be part of a literary magazine. I believe there is a certain degree of responsibility which all editors need to uphold; however, when I look at other magazines, I sometimes feel cheated by the product I look at - namely because I've seen some pretty awful pieces published in some magazines I respect. I, like every other writer, have a rather large stack of rejection letters, and sometimes I'm baffled by them. I'm by no means an established poet, but some publications surprise me with their decisions.
So why is it that some pieces, regardless of how good or bad they are, get rejected by certain publications? Obviously that's a hard question to tackle and there isn't one good answer, but I've been looking through a ridiculous number of magazines lately and a common thread I've seen spread through said magazines is the issue of taste.
Taste, I think, should not play into determining whether or not a piece holds literary value. It really kills me when I see certain types of poetry published in magazines. I'm not going to name names, but there have been a couple of pieces in a fantastic magazine that have made me cringe. One poem even had an explanation of itself posted underneath it. There have also been poems published in certain magazines that seem to be purely aesthetic in nature - structurally so, not aestheticism based in imagery or subject matter - and seem to lack any nuggets of actual meaning. Unorthodox structure does not hold literary value in and of itself, nor does it really mean anything if it's not being used as a means of conveyance. If I had a nickel for every time I saw a poem centered around structure rather than content, I'd have a shitload of nickels. And it's silly that I have to address this issue in the publishing world, but it seems some publishers are hooked in by pretty looking poems. Surface vs. substance comes into play here, and, sadly, it seems that many magazines reject substance over surface.
I don't want to go on a rant, though, and it certainly isn't my place to tell a poet how to write. I do think, however, publishers ought to look past aesthetics and focus in on what is actually being presented in whatever work they're reviewing. The issue of taste is multi-dimensional, and structure is just one example of how taste serves as a detriment to the publishing realm.
There, I would think, are many ways to keep taste to a minimum, though. I believe our publication is less inclined to let taste play a role in our review process because we have eight editors, all of whom read through every submission. By having such a large reading staff, we are able to keep each other in check, and thereby review submissions based on their literary merit rather than their "flavor." I realize "literary merit" is a very loose term; however, we are all strongly grounded in literary theory and American literature, which, I think, qualifies us as responsible reviewers of literature.
I really do believe literary magazines need to have large mastheads, and I think they serve many purposes in terms of maintaining literary integrity in the publishing world. I realize this article might come off a bit hostile, but I really do believe that some magazines need to take a step back and reflect on how they go about reviewing the work they receive. Editors have an enormous responsibility to not only the audience we present work to, but to the countless up-and-coming writers who flood our inboxes on a daily basis. The act of giving away a piece of creative writing is a dangerous one, and the editors/publishers hold the power to uplift or destroy the spirits of the people who submit to them. So with that being said, please, publishers, be careful with how you review literature, and make sure you're remaining diligent in selecting works of literary merit. The world of literature is ever-changing, and it is our responsibility to make sure the tradition we foster is one we can someday look back on and be proud of.
Cheers,
Jack
No comments:
Post a Comment